[Web-SIG] My original template API proposal
ben at groovie.org
Mon Feb 6 21:08:31 CET 2006
On Feb 6, 2006, at 11:50 AM, Kevin Dangoor wrote:
> I'm not keen on the wsgi_environ and set_header_callback options,
> because I don't perceive a true need for *this* API to be tied to the
> web. Of course, you need these if the template itself is going to set
> any of the headers, but there is some added complexity that results.
> TurboGears skirts this by having the Python code outside of the
> template decide what content-type (and other headers) are appropriate.
Of course, quite a few people have all mentioned conflicting 'needs'
they perceived. This option keeps flexibility so that whatever your
perception, if you *need* the template language to work like a WSGI
app, you *could* do that with an API including these options.
> Since these are optional, I'm not strongly against them, but they just
> feel like they add a bit of complexity to an API that is dealing with
> a simple problem.
Many people won't ever see them, its only those of us using template
languages where it can handle a full WSGI environment that will want
this. Having that option enables wrapping the render function in a
way that will be identical to a WSGI call. I think it's a good
compromise that still lets template languages have the freedom to
provide their own request/response API independent of the framework,
in addition to accommodating existing template languages.
I don't see a problem with Ian's spec, as it keeps the up-front
simple appearance, while leaving the door open to a WSGI wrapper for
those of us that want it.
More information about the Web-SIG